Interesting. Charles seems as duty bound as anyone if one looks at his life, Queen included. Your scenarios for him seem implausible - but maybe wishful thinking?

Regarding Diana 'knew him better' - I think all the evidence is that she didn't really know him, didn't really 'get' him - if she did, she would have stayed married to him, I would guess. Will Diana's petulant attempt at public 'payback' to Charles for whatever she felt he had or had not done to-or-for her continue to be the gauze through which Charles is to be judged/seen? I wonder what it is about Diana's string of slurs that continues to be so alluring and compelling that they are routinely restated as 'facts'.

What would be so terrible about having Charles become King? In the event the Queen decides that it is wiser to have the transition in her lifetime - to avoid any unpleasantness for him? I could see a mother - as mother but also as Queen - being concerned in that way for her son - and her heir - having to deal with the fall-out (still) from someone who smeared the RF.

My scenario is not "wishfull thinking " Charles is heir to the throne and should succed his mother, simple as.

I don't think it would be terrible for Charles to become King, he may not be King for a long time , Edward VII wasn't, but I am quite sure that when the time comes he will give it his all .
Sorry it has taken so long to get back on this , but i don't log on every day, so appologies if it disrupts the thread.

As someone earlier posted, this is not a job for the Queen, this is who she is. Call it God, fate or happenstance, she was brought to the throne, not through merit, but due to the circumstances of her birth and the action of her uncle. I have no doubt Her Majesty will do what is best (in her mind) for her people. If she believes abdication would be best for her country, I have no doubt the Queen will act accordingly.

But I do not believe she will abdicate in order to spare herself her duty to her subjects or to bring Charles to the throne earlier. If she is unable to perform her duty, then I believe a Regency will be set in place. But to abdicate voluntarily-NEVER.

This is Queen Elizabeth II who has been taught since 1936 that duty comes first. To be quite honest, if things hadn't changed during that year I am sure she still would have done her duty in regards to any royal engagements as a junior member of the BRF but with her parents King George VI and Queen Elizabeth as well as her grandmother, Queen Mary...this Queen knows that her position is a lifetime position.

To paraphrase her father, the late King George VI (when speaking of the Windsors) "to do so now (change) would make a mockery of the past."

Hey all, did anyone read Jeffrey Archer's "First Among Equals"?
He actually wrote a scenario in which The Queen abdicates. Though she really doesnt announce Abdication, it is written that she makes a 'decision', consults her Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition about that.
And by the end of the novel, the new Prime Minister is invited to Buckinham palace by King Charles III..
Cool na.. Was there any such even elsewhere in fiction?
How come Archer judged Queen will even consider andicating..

The Queen can announce something like a retirement (stepping away from public duties), in which case Prince Charles will become the Regent. However, the Monarch would still be Elizabeth II and Charles wouldn't be Charles III until after she passes away. George IV effectively reigned over the Kingdom from 1811 as The Prince Regent but he didn't become King until after his father died in 1820.

Alternatively, the Queen can abdicate - and abdicate officially, in which case Charles will become Charles III as soon as the abdication is ratified.

She will never abdicate but will continue living her life as she has always chosen to do.

However, I think it is incumbent upon her to increase her support of both Charles and Camilla - publically. She needs to be actively seen to do that. I think that she will find actively and positively taking action difficult because she hasn't done that in 60 years. I sometimes think she lives in a cocoon, established in about 1956 (or maybe 1856 or 1756!).

But I really believe that she needs to established Charles and Camilla as the rightful successors in the minds of the general public who dont give 2 figs for hereditary monarchy and have only known QEII.

Start handing over some of her patronages to them; giving them the lead role in public engagements which are normally hers - ease out of the high profile.

The worst possible outcome is that she takes on less low profile work and hands nothing of significance to Charles.

Stream of consciousness stuff here so sorry if it rambles on - but I seriously believe the monarchy needs her to ACT, and she doesnt like doing this.

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

The changes which enveloped her antecedents over centuries must show the Queen that unexpected things can happen. No one ever thought there would be a Victoria as Queen.
No one thought there would be a Hanover monarch when Queen Anne was so fertile in having children, but they all died before their majority. Charles should be made ready, as Cepe said, by giving him more high profile duties. A Regency could do this. A very fine concept, Charles as Prince Regent.

The changes which enveloped her antecedents over centuries must show the Queen that unexpected things can happen. No one ever thought there would be a Victoria as Queen.
No one thought there would be a Hanover monarch when Queen Anne was so fertile in having children, but they all died before their majority. Charles should be made ready, as Cepe said, by giving him more high profile duties. A Regency could do this. A very fine concept, Charles as Prince Regent.

A regency when the existing monarch is fit and able is very unlikely.

What "more high profile" duties would you like C&C to undertake? I thought the message was very very clearly set out at the jubilee celebrations.

In short, no. After what she witnessed with her uncle, especially the turmoil it caused for her parents, I can't see her doing that, even at her age. She'll reign until death, which is the tradition.

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

I always find both the idea of abdication and the idea of a regency rather unnerving (not that I'm in any way opposed to the idea of Charles as King).

Abdication would mean that HM is going back on the vows that she has mad to this country. In the course of her life she has made 3 vows that her "whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong." The first was in her 21st birthday speech, the second at her coronation, and the third more recently at the jubilee last year, where she said "I dedicate myself anew to your service." An abdication for her would be to renege on those vows - made to her realms, her people, and her God. I don't think anyone should take that lightly and ask it of her. It is also said that she vowed to her mother, father, and grandmother - all who had very strong opinions on abdication - that she would never abdicate.

A regency is also unnerving as it implies that HM is no longer mentally capable of fulfilling her duties. That's not something I would wish on anyone, regardless of their role in life.

HM is likely to remain in her position for some time. She shows some signs of slowing - as is her prerogative at her age - but slowing is not the same as abdicating. Give more duties to Charles, Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward, and Sophie. Give more duties to William, Catherine, and Harry (although, granted, yes, William and Catherine do have the more lightened load due to the pregnancy). Even give more duties to Beatrice and Eugenie, who are both HRHs as well. But neither abdication nor regency is necessary.

Yes, except an infirmity of body that prevents her from being able to rule also implies an infirmity of mind. As for the unavailability that has largely been countered by modern transportation. Once going to the colonies or even Europe could be considered unavailability. Now it's just a phone call away.

She will never abdicate but will continue living her life as she has always chosen to do.

However, I think it is incumbent upon her to increase her support of both Charles and Camilla - publically. She needs to be actively seen to do that. I think that she will find actively and positively taking action difficult because she hasn't done that in 60 years. I sometimes think she lives in a cocoon, established in about 1956 (or maybe 1856 or 1756!).

But I really believe that she needs to established Charles and Camilla as the rightful successors in the minds of the general public who dont give 2 figs for hereditary monarchy and have only known QEII.

Start handing over some of her patronages to them; giving them the lead role in public engagements which are normally hers - ease out of the high profile.

The worst possible outcome is that she takes on less low profile work and hands nothing of significance to Charles.

Stream of consciousness stuff here so sorry if it rambles on - but I seriously believe the monarchy needs her to ACT, and she doesnt like doing this.

I totally agree. HM is very set in her ways and she will find it difficult, but I believe it is necessary.

At the jubilee celebrations, I thought she made it very plain that Charles was next. If you check the court circular, you will find that he does more and more of the ceremonial duties. The only thing he doesn't do are the daily boxes.

At the jubilee celebrations, I thought she made it very plain that Charles was next. If you check the court circular, you will find that he does more and more of the ceremonial duties. The only thing he doesn't do are the daily boxes.

I wouldn't be surprised if he read the red boxes though. He obviously doesn't sign off on anything, but it seems like she's been open to training him for everything that comes with the role (unlike Victoria with Edward VII), which would include the boxes.

You are correct. I think that was reported a number of years ago. Also, I believe that William is being educated in the running of the Duchy. There is so much that goes on behind the scenes that we are not privy to.

I had that thought as I was writing my response - "am I making this up?" I always thought it was a shame how many heirs to the throne don't seem to have actually been trained for their future role, and I think an important part of modernizing the monarchy is in acknowledging that the heirs need to be trained properly. They need to be taught their job before being thrust into it. While the BRF has gotten lucky in the past, they haven't always been so.

When I was at the Royal Mews in either 2002 or 2005 there was a small carriage that came in and we asked what it was - one horse - and we were told that it was the carriage that took the official papers from The Queen to Charles every day that they were both in London. According to this person, who was simply the guide at the Mews, the Queen sends all documents across to Charles so that he can read them and make comments - that they also have private discussions about them - just her and him.

Also that all Counsellors of State are given a briefing on what is happening regularly - that would be Charles, William, Harry and Andrew - so that if called upon they have the background info.